Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul J Larkin

A criminal trial has the potential to permanently alter the rest of one's life.  Punishments can range from fines to imprisonment to execution.  This gives the government tremendous ability to impose penalties on its citizens.  The Founders understood this and laid out criteria under which criminal trials would proceed.  Under the Sixth Amendment, trials are speedy and fair, juries are impartial and Congress cannot take any of these rights away from the accused.  We are delighted to have joining our all-star student panel Paul J. Larkin, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation as he helps us understand the focus, meaning and purpose of the Sixth Amendment.

"There are problems with drugs, but fentanyl clearly can kill and will kill a very large number of people if we don't do something about it," said Paul J. Larkin, senior legal research fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, at The Heritage Foundation. "Enforcement has to be one of the three legs of any response. We have to educate people, we have to enforce the laws and we have to treat the people who wound up being addicted," said Larkin, who recently moderated a panel, "The Fentanyl Crisis: The Mexico-Texas Connection."

The Biden administration has announced it is considering clemency for convicted drug offenders among the approximately 4,000 prisoners released early from federal prison due to the pandemic, who are subject to being returned when the national emergency declaration expires. Some argue this does not go far enough, noting the administration has not proposed structural changes to a process they describe as marred by delays and political favoritism in administrations of both parties. Among the key questions are how to balance expectations for finality among prosecutors, victims, and the public with the benefits of second chances earned after an objective review. Also, this discussion will explore whether the clemency process should be partly or fully moved out of DOJ.Featuring:-- Rachel Barkow, Vice Dean and Charles Seligson Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, NYU School of Law-- Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation-- Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor to Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation

Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Criminal Law expert at the Heritage Foundation (https://www.heritage.org/) is our special guest in this episode.  What's 10,000 times stronger than morphine, is used as an elephant tranquilizer, and is so powerful that only 0.002 grams of it will result in certain death? If you guessed Fentanyl, you're right. Largely manufactured in China, and shipped across our southern border, courtesy of the drug cartels, this is the substance that killed Prince and took 42,700 American lives last year. Co-hosts Dr. Wendy Patrick and Larry Dershem, Esq. ask their guest about strategies that can be used by law enforcement and others to deal with this scourge on our nation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The term has ended with a bang! In this final episode of the season, GianCarlo and Amy discuss the blockbuster cases handed down this week, which addressed whether the President must release his tax returns, whether nearly half of Oklahoma is, in fact, an Indian reservation, whether the Little Sisters have to provide contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, and more. Amy interviews our dear friend and colleague, Paul J. Larkin, Jr., and he talks about his career, his mentors, and how he prepared for SCOTUS oral arguments.Here's Amy's article about the Little Sisters' case: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/07/08/little-sisters-of-poor-win-big-at-supreme-court-but-the-fight-isnt-over/Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @ scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for futureepisodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug:https://shop.heritage.org/products/scotus-101-mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, GianCarlo and Amy unpack the two opinions released this week, one holding that the SEC may seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the other upholding a statutory limit to habeas review for aliens detained for expedited removal. GianCarlo then interviews Judge Sandra Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit, and who tells us about her career, her mentors, and her clerkship with Judge Sandra Day O'Connor. And lastly, the hosts are joined by special guest, Paul J. Larkin, Jr., for SCOTUS movie trivia!Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @ scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for futureepisodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug:https://shop.heritage.org/products/scotus-101-mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 2017, Congress and the President used the Congressional Review Act to disapprove 14 agency rules issued at the end of the Obama administration. As we enter another presidential election year, the CRA may soon experience another resurgence. Our speakers will address recent CRA developments, including ongoing litigation and an OMB memo asserting CRA authority over agency guidance documents, as well as how the upcoming deadline for submitted rules for review by this Congress and President (rather than their successors) affects agency decision-making.Featuring: -- Amit Narang, Regulatory Policy Advocate, Public Citizen Inc.-- Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- Moderator: Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation

In 2017, Congress and the President used the Congressional Review Act to disapprove 14 agency rules issued at the end of the Obama administration. As we enter another presidential election year, the CRA may soon experience another resurgence. Our speakers will address recent CRA developments, including ongoing litigation and an OMB memo asserting CRA authority over agency guidance documents, as well as how the upcoming deadline for submitted rules for review by this Congress and President (rather than their successors) affects agency decision-making.Featuring: -- Amit Narang, Regulatory Policy Advocate, Public Citizen Inc.-- Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- Moderator: Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation

On Thursday, January 4th, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew a Justice Department memo issued in 2013 by the Obama Department of Justice that told federal prosecutors to focus on prosecuting marijuana dealers who sold to children, committed violence, and did their business in states that had not legalized marijuana, rather than those states that had legalized the drug. Paul Larkin of the Heritage Foundation and Ilya Shapiro of CATO joins Moderator Marc Levin to discuss the withdrawal.Featuring:Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.Moderator: Marc A. Levin, Vice President, Criminal Justice Policy, and Policy Director, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On Thursday, January 4th, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew a Justice Department memo issued in 2013 by the Obama Department of Justice that told federal prosecutors to focus on prosecuting marijuana dealers who sold to children, committed violence, and did their business in states that had not legalized marijuana, rather than those states that had legalized the drug. Paul Larkin of the Heritage Foundation and Ilya Shapiro of CATO joins Moderator Marc Levin to discuss the withdrawal.Featuring:Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.Moderator: Marc A. Levin, Vice President, Criminal Justice Policy, and Policy Director, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 10, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, James Lankford, and Mike Lee introduced the Stop Settlements Slush Fund Act. The Act would prohibit the Department of Justice from enforcing settlements that allow parties to give money to outside parties chosen by the administration instead of the Treasury. Many of these outside parties have been non-profits that Congress had recently removed from federal funding. -- Featuring: Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation and Prof. David Min, Assistant Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law.